Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 5d8f9b-OGFhO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

Description:

Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation Don Andrews – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1157
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Assessment of Offenders and Programs: Enhancing Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR) Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation


1
Assessment of Offenders and Programs Enhancing
Adherence with the Risk/Need/Responsivity (RNR)
Model of Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation
  • Don Andrews
  • Professor Emeritus
  • Distinguished Research Professor
  • Department of Psychology the Institute
    of Criminology and Criminal Justice
  • Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  • daandrews_at_rogers.com
  • Scotland June 1, 2007

2
OUTLINE
  • Principles of Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR)
  • Look at the research evidence on prediction
  • Look at the research evidence on intervention
  • The importance of assessment
  • 1) systematic assessment of offenders
  • 2) systematic assessment of staff,
    managers, programs
  • Challenges for RNR
  • Implementation
  • Critical criminology and feminist
    challenges
  • Clinical psychological challenges
  • Crime Prevention Jurisprudence
  • RNR and GPCSL are quite flexible and readily
    integrate with some clinical psychological and
    women-specific concerns

3
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention
  • Psychological Theory General Personality and
    Cognitive Social Learning Perspectives (GPCSL) on
    criminal behaviour
  • (Understanding variation in the criminal
    behavior of individuals Do not rely on sociology
    of crime rates, or class-based theories or
    justice theories of deterrence or restoration or
    forensic mental health perspectives, or.)
  • Introduce Human Service Do not rely on the
    sanction

4
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention
  • Risk The level of service should increase with
    level of risk
  • Need Set intermediate targets of change that
    actually link with criminal behavior (target
    criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors)
  • Breadth of intermediate
    targets/multimodal
  • Responsivity Use powerful influence strategies
  • General, use behavioral, cognitive social
    learning strategies
  • Specific, match intervention modes and strategies
    to learning styles, motivation, demographics of
    case and build on strengths
  • Professional Discretion Non-adherence to RNR for
    specified reasons

5
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention
  • Community-Based setting preferred (best
    if treatment occurs in the natural environment)
  • Staff Practices Relationship and Structuring
    Skills
  • Core Correctional Practices
    (CCP) including modeling, reinforcement,
    Motivational Interviewing, Cognitive Self
    Change,)
  • Beliefs RNR is effective. I
    possess the skills and it is worthwhile to
    practice accordingly
  • (Self-efficacy in regard RNR
    practice)
  • new since 1990

6
RNR Model of Assessment and Crime Prevention
  • Management and Organizational Concerns
  • Staff Selection, Training and Clinical
    Supervision
  • Dosage
  • Integrity of implementation
  • Monitoring for RNR Adherence
  • Ties with External Agencies and broader
    community
  • new since 1990

7
  • Generally, promote the ethical, legal, decent,
    just, cost-effective and humane pursuit of
    reduced offending through RNR-based human service
    delivery in the least onerous justice context

8
Dosage as a Separate Principle?
  • Dosage and the high risk cases
  • Encourage participation of
    higher risk cases
  • Discourage drop-outs by higher
    risk cases
  • Discourage participation in,
    and encourage drop-outs from, programs not in
    adherence with RNR

9
Major Risk and Strength Factors The Big 4
  • Antisocial attitudes, values, beliefs,
    rationalizations supportive of crime
  • cognitive emotional states of anger,
    resentment, defiance, feeling mistreated
  • criminal identity
  • schema, criminal scripts (sets of
    inter-related perceptions, interpretations and
    actions)
  • Antisocial associates and relative isolation from
    anticriminal others
  • Quality of Relationship
  • Structuring (favorable/unfavorable to
    crime

10
Major Risk and Strength Factors The Big 4
continues
  • Antisocial personality pattern restlessly
    aggressive, weak self control, adventurous
    pleasure seeking, callousness
  • 5 Factor Low Agreeableness
  • Low Conscientiousness
  • Caspi Weak Constraint
  • Negative Emotionality
  • A history of antisocial behavior evident from a
    young age, involving a number and variety of
    antisocial acts

11
The Central 8 The Moderate 4
  • Parenting/family problems in the domains of
    affection/caring and monitoring/supervision
  • Low levels of achievement and satisfaction in
    school and at work
  • Little involvement in anticriminal leisure and
    recreational pursuits
  • Substance abuse

12
Minor Risk Factors
  • Low verbal intelligence
  • Personal emotional distress (low self-esteem)
  • Low Positive emotionality (being unhappy and
    unsociable)
  • Low Spirituality
  • Psychopathology (Major Affective,
    Schizophrenia, Internalizing)
  • History of victimization / abuse
  • Lower class origins
  • Biological anomalies
  • Fear of official punishment

13
Some minor risk factors may be
  • important responsivity factors
  • verbal intelligence
  • personal distress
  • mental disorder
  • having their effect through the central eight
  • Abuse -gt anger, irritability
  • Lower class origins -gt low educational
    success
  • irrelevant to crime

14

15
Background Factors Contributing to the Big 4 in
the Immediate Situation of Action
  • Age, ethnicity, gender, class of origin
  • Neighborhood
  • Family/marital
  • School/work Moderate 4
  • Leisure/recreation
  • Substance Abuse
  • Victimization

16
(No Transcript)
17
Grand Mean of the Mean Validity Estimates from
Eight Meta-Analyses (including Bonta, Hanson,
Lipsey, Gendreau.) A B (2006 66)
  • Grand Mean for the Big Four
  • .26 (CI .19 / .33)
  • Grand Mean for the Moderate Four
  • .17 (CI .12 / .21)
  • Grand Mean for the Minor Risk/Need Factors
  • .04 (CI -.04 / .12)

18
Assessment Generations (Mean r for assessment
approaches) General Recidivism Andrews, Bonta
Wormith, 2006)
  • 1G Clinical Judgment (.10G)
  • 2G Corrections Wisconsin (.31G)
  • SFS (.30 G) SIRS (.36 G)
  • 2G Forensic Mental Health
  • PCL-R (.27G) VRAG (.39 Violence)
  • return to violence in a moment

19
Assessment Generations (Mean r General/Violence)
contd
  • 3G LSI-R (.36 G)
  • LSI-R, retest (.61 G k 2, very
    tentative)
  • 4G LS/CMI (.41 G)

20
3G and 4G Assessments of Change Increase in r
square
  • LSI-R (A R 84) 294
  • LSI-R (Raynor 04) 293
  • LSI example from an r of .36 to an r of
    .61
  • OIA Need (Law 04) 282
  • OIA Risk, Need, Acute 159
  • (Brown 04)
  • Acute dynamic factors are fast changing and
    enhance prediction over the short-term

21
LS/CMI General Risk/Need Predictive
Validities
  • k mean
    r 95 CI
  • General Recidivism 8 .41 .32/.50
  • Violent Recidivism 7 .29
    .22/.35
  • Serious (Incarceration) 5 .37
    .35/.40
  • Based on 8 studies of 9 samples cited in the
    LS/CMI Manual (A, B W 2004)
  • Violent Recidivism 2 .47 .15/.78
  • (R including history of Violence G W R
    A Barnoski Aos)

22
Predictive Validity (Mean r) of Minor Risk
Factors, Unstructured Prof Judgment, Moderate
Risk Factors, Major Risk Factors, Composite of
Central Eight Risk Factors (LS/CMI Risk/Need) and
Reassessment of Composite

23
Summary of Risk/Need
  • Solid Evidence regarding the major risk/need
    factors
  • Solid Evidence that offenders can be
    differentiated according to risk of criminal
    recidivism
  • Less agreement regarding labeling or grouping of
    factors
  • Reasonably solid understanding of sources of
    increased validity estimates

24
Sources of variability in magnitude of validity
estimates
  • structured preferred over unstructured
  • actuarial over professional judgment
  • assess a number and variety of major risk
    factors
  • training and clinical supervision of assessors
  • reassessments of dynamic factors
  • multi-domain / multi-method assessments of risk
    factors and of outcome
  • long follow-up periods
  • untreated samples yield larger prediction
    estimates

25
Effect of RNR Adherence on Offending
  • Does adherence with RNR reduce offending?
  • Over 50 meta-analyses since 1990
  • The Carleton University analyses focused on
    testing and development of RNR

26
Andrews, Dowden, Gendreau Meta-Analysis of
Correctional Treatment
  • Overall, 374 tests of treatment (K 374)
  • Mean ES (r) .08, 95 CI .06 / .10
  • Range -.43 to .83
  • What are the sources of variability?
  • A major source of large ES estimates
    is human service that is in adherence with RNR

27
Human Service in a Justice Context
  • Differentiate between the sanction and the
    treatment
  • The action for purposes of reduced reoffending
    resides in the treatment

28
Principle of Human Service Do Not Rely on the
Sanction
  • Sanctions
  • 2003 r -.03
  • (k 101)
  • Service
  • 2003 r .12
  • (k 273)

29
Mean ES by Adherence to the Principles of Human
Service and RNR
30
(No Transcript)
31
Effectiveness of Sexual Offender Treatment Based
on Adherence to Risk, Need and Responsivity
(Hanson et al., 2006)
4 studies 6 studies 12
studies 1 study
None 1 principle 2 principles All
three
32
Violent Recidivism Mean ES by Level of RNR
Adherence (D A, 2000)
33
Prison Misconducts Mean ES by RNR Adherence and
Staff/Organizational Factors (CPAI)
  • French Gendreau (2006) CPAI-2000

  • Unadj r
  • High CPAI .47 (k 10) .38
  • Med CPAI .42 (k 24) .20
  • Low CPAI .08 (k 32) .16
  • r adjusted for sample size

34
Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence and Program Type
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
Patterns in Risk Level Tx Intensity
Offender RISK LEVEL
Recidivism Tx BY RISK LEVEL
Authors of Study
Impact on RECIDIVISM
Minimum
Intensive
ODonnell et al., 1971
Low Risk High Risk
16 78
22 56
(? 6) (? 22)
Low Risk High Risk
3 37
10 18
Baird et al., 1979
(? 7) (? 19)
12 58
17 31
Low Risk High Risk
Andrews Kiessling, 1980
(? 5) (? 27)
12 92
29 25
Low Risk High Risk
Andrews Friesen, 1987
(? 17) (? 67)
Some studies combined intensive Tx with
supervision or other services
37
38
A Closer Look at ADHERENCE with RISK Principle
Correlation of Risk Adherence with ES
  • AG Aggregate Estimate (sample wide e.g.,
    majority of cases have a prior offence)
    .12
  • WS Within sample estimate (lower and higher risk
    groups identified) .36
  • Correlation of recidivism rate in the control
    group with ES (Nesovic sample)

  • .39
  • Direct linear increase of ES with risk level
    of samples ES continues to increase even among
    samples with the highest recidivism rates in the
    control group

39
A Closer Look at ADHERENCE with RISK Principle
Correlation of Risk Adherence with ES
  • Only applies with otherwise appropriate Tx
  • Adherence with
  • Human Service No Yes
  • .10ns
    .16
  • Need Principle
  • .05ns
    .25
  • General Responsivity
  • .09ns
    .25
  • HS, Need and General Responsivity
  • .01ns
    .26

40
The Specification of General Responsivity through
Core Correctional Practices Mean ES by CCP (Mean
r .08, k 374)
  • Relationship Skills .34
  • Structuring Skills .27
  • Effective Reinforcement .31
  • Effective Modeling .28
  • Effective Disapproval .30
  • Structured Skill Training .30
  • Problem Solving Skill Training .25
  • Advocacy/Brokerage .11
  • Effective Authority .26
  • Also MI, Cog Self Change not tested

41
Adherence with General Responsivity and
Correlation with ES
  • General Responsivity .40
  • Plus Core Correctional Practices .43
  • (Relationship and Structuring skills)
  • Plus Selection, Training and Clinical
  • Supervision of Staff .46

42
Adherence to Need Principle Correlation with
Effect Size
  • of Criminogenic Needs Targeted
  • exceeds number of non-criminogenic
  • Needs .25
  • Magnitude of difference between of criminogenic
    and of non-criminogenic
  • needs targeted (Breadth) .58

43
(No Transcript)
44
Mean Effect Size by Specific Criminogenic Need
Targeted (Overall mean effect .08, K 374)
  • Antisocial Attitudes .21 (78)
  • Self-Control Deficits .22 (59)
  • Antisocial Associates .21 (51)
  • Non-Criminal Alternative
  • Behavior in High Risk Sits .22 (18)
  • Family Process .29 (30)
  • School/Work .15 (88)
  • Substance Abuse .11 (36) ns
  • Leisure Recreation not tested

45
Mean Effect Size by Specific Non-Criminogenic
Needs Targeted (Overall mean effect .08, K
374)
  • Fear of official punishment -.05 (43)
  • Personal distress .08 (101) ns
  • Physical activity .08 (43) ns
  • Conventional Ambition .08 (29) ns
  • Overall Personal Non-Crim .04 (171)
  • Overall Interpers Non-Crim .01 (45)

46
Mean ES (r) by Intermediate Targets
  • Criminogenic needs targeted exclusively
  • .22 (18/25) k 111
  • Some criminogenic needs targeted, some non-crim
    needs targeted
  • .13 (10/18) k 81
  • Unspecified targets
  • .00 (-04/.04) k 88
  • Non-crim needs targeted exclusively
  • -.03 (-.06/01) k 99

47
Mean ES by Targeting of Criminogenic and
NonCriminogenic Needs
48
Specific Responsivity
  • Whats new
  • Psychopathy (Hare Wong 2005)
  • Stages of Change, Motivation, Readiness
  • Gender-specific programming
  • Culturally-specific programming
  • Integrate the several personality models (Van
    Voorhis)
  • Static and Dynamic Responsivity factors
  • Mental Disorder

49
Integrity
  • The selection, training and clinical supervision
    of staff according to RNR
  • Selection, training and clinical supervision of
    staff according to relationship and structuring
    skills
  • (High quality relationship, modeling, role
    playing, reinforcement, problem solving,
    motivational interviewing, cognitive
    self-change..Core Correctional Practices)

50
Other Indicators of Integrity
  • Specific model of Tx
  • Tx Manuals
  • Adequate Dosage
  • Monitoring of Process/Intermediate Change
  • Small Numbers
  • Involved Evaluator

51
Mean Correlation of Therapeutic Integrity with ES
by RNR Adherence
  • Low RNR ADHERENCE
  • r .06ns
  • (k 144)
  • High RNR ADHERENCE
  • r .29
  • (k 230)

52
Mean ES by RNR Adherence including Breadth and
Adherence with Staff Selection, Training and
Clinical Supervision

53
The Big Challenge Programming in the REAL
WORLD versus the Small Demonstration Project
  • Mark Lipsey the effects of treatment are much
    higher in demonstration projects than in the
    real world of routine programming
  • We too find this effect in our meta-analyses
    (Demo small samples, involved evaluator)

54
Mean ES by Level of RNR Adherence and by
Demonstration vs Regular Programming
55
Mean RNR Adherence Score, Mean ES and Correlation
of RNR Adherence and ES for Demonstration
Projects vs Regular Corrections
  • Mean Mean Corr of
  • RNR Adher ES Adh
    wES
  • Demonstration 2.30 .29 .38
  • k 047
  • Regular 0.82 .03 .41
  • k 209

56
Two Separate Worlds of Practice
  • REAL WORLD (k 209) DEMO PROJECT (k
    47)
  • Any Human Service
  • 65 98
  • Mean RNR Adherence
  • 0.82
    2.30
  • Mean Breadth
  • 0.06 2.11
  • Staff Selection, Training, Clinical
    Supervision
  • 01 28
  • Sum Core Correctional Practices
  • 0.23 2.19
  • Sum of Integrity Scores
  • 1.52
    4.32
  • Mean ES
  • 0.03
    0.29

57
Dramatic Need
  • to enhance RNR Adherence in regular
    corrections
  • to enhance staff selection, training and
    clinical supervision consistent with RNR and
    core relationship and structuring skills
  • to make regular corrections more like
    demonstration projects

58
Assessment of Offenders and Adherence
  • Employ assessment instruments that structure
    assessment in ways that facilitate adherence with
    RNR
  • 4th G Level of Service/Case Management Inventory
    (LS/CMI), includes responsivity and strengths,
    case planning with reference to criminogenic and
    non-criminogenic need, re-assessments

59
Assessment of Programs and Adherence
  • Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI)
  • CPAI 2000 Gendreau Andrews (2001)
  • Enhance adherence to RNR by assessing on-going
    adherence to RNR and other aspects of program
    integrity
  • Identify strengths, identify potential problems

60
Reliability of CPAI Nesovic (2003)
  • Questionnaire
  • Total Score
  • I-R .96
  • IC .88
  • Interview
  • Total Score
  • I-R .98
  • IC .85
  • . Inter-form (Q and I) .80 (Total Score)
  • Mean Q slightly higher than mean I (p lt 10)

61
(No Transcript)
62
MEAN ES and CPAI Tx Score Eta by Setting and
Offender Type
  • Community (.60) / Institution (.44)
  • Restorative (.77) / Retributive (.51)
  • Justice Staff (.49) / Other Staff (.57)
  • Female (.60) / Male (.51)
  • Ethnic Minority (.53) / Majority (.50)
  • Violent Offenders (.54) / Nonviolent (.50)
  • Young Offenders (.52) / Adult (.51)

63
MEAN ES and CPAI Tx Score Eta by Quality of
Primary Studies
  • Random Assign(.58) / Nonrandom (.46)
  • Attrition Problem (.49) / No problem (.62)
  • Internal Evaluator (.50) / External (.40)
  • Small Sample (.59) / Large Sample (.45)
  • Short Follow-up (.59) / Long FU (.54)
  • Atheoretical (.54) / Theoretical (.48)

64
MEAN ES and CPAI Tx Score Eta by Type of Program
(Targets)
  • Antisocial Attitudes (.28) Anger / SC (.30)
  • Family (.59) Antisocial Associates (.45)
  • Substance Abuse (.48) Academic (.52)
  • Vocational / Employment (.65)
  • Self-esteem (.71) Physical Training (.65)
  • Conventional Ambition (.78)

65
Relationship Between CPAI Significant Factors and
Treatment Effect for Ohio HWHs (Lowenkamp)
66
(No Transcript)
67
The Challenge of Alternative Perspectives on
Criminal Behaviour
  • Reject GPCSL perspective
  • Reject RNR
  • Reject risk/need assessment
  • Disagree re criminogenic needs
  • Disagree with risk principle
  • Prefer non-structured interventions
  • Prefer social location and/or victimization
    theories
  • Healing or other outcomes more important than
    crime prevention

68
Some Feminist and Critical Criminological
Challenges
  • .(there is a)skepticism within criminology and
    other social sciences about our ability to make
    accurate and reliable predictions of
    dangerousness and recidivism
  • Risk / need is immoral, racist, discriminatory,
    sexist.

69
  • The compartmentalizing of risk identities is
    actually a spuriously correlated constellation of
    traits that, in reality, hinge upon the actual
    predictors of socioeconomic status, ethnicity,
    gender and age

70
  • The Major Causes of Crime in the view of the
    critics of PCC and RNR
  • inequality in the distribution of social
    wealth, power and prestige
  • victimization (emotional, physical,
    sexual, financial)
  • rooted in capitalism and patriarchy.
  • Psychology and biology are minimized and social
    location variables are favored (age, ethnicity,
    gender, class..)

71
LSI (4) X Age (2) x Gender (2) x Reliance on
Welfare (2) in Relation to Recidivism(Three Year
Post Probation Follow-Up) N 561
  • Overall corr of LSI with recidivism .44
  • With controls for Age, Gender, Poverty .40
  • Contributions of Gender and Poverty
  • with controls for LSI ns
  • Contribution of Age reduced to a
  • minor one with LSI controlled .11
    .

72
Rettinger Sample of Female Offenders 57 month
follow-up of 411 (r .63)
  • Survey of 12 indicators of physical, sexual, and
    emotional abuse (childhood / adulthood)
  • 82 of the women reported some form of abuse
  • Simple rs vary from .05ns to .19
  • Not a single or composite indicator linked with
    recidivism once LSI risk was controlled
  • Similarly with self-abuse and problems in the
    domains of money, parenting, family, and
    emotional difficulties.

73
LSI-R Predictive Validity Estimates with Female
Offenders
  • Rettinger (1998) CA (ON) .63
    (411)
  • McConnell (1996) CA (Fed) .61
    (xx)
  • Andrews (1982) CA (ON) .53 (97)
  • Coulson et al (1996) CA (ON .51 (526)
  • Lowenkamp et al (2001) US .37 (125)
  • Raynor et al (2000) UK .36 (125)
  • Folson et al (undated) CA (Fed) .30 (91)
  • Holtfreter et al (2004) US .17 (134)
  • Reisig et al (2006) US .05 (235)
  • MEAN r .39 (.24/.54) k 9
  • MEDIAN .37
  • 2 reports on same project

74
Claire Goggin and Paul Gendreau 2004 unpublished
manuscript
  • 14 predictive validity estimates for
  • the LSI-R with female offenders
  • .41

75
(No Transcript)
76
Humanistic/Clinical Challenges
  • Good Lives Model (Ward Stewart 03) Promote
    Personal Well-Being
  • RNR is too negative (risk and need)
  • LS/CMI now surveys strengths
  • Strengths as specific responsivity
  • PCC is not holistic
  • personal (conscious and unconscious),
  • interpersonal,
  • community

77
Humanistic/Clinical Challenges
  • Good Lives Model (Ward Stewart 03)
  • Need is not defined as it usually is in Psych
  • Correct dynamic risk factors (in correctional
    tradition)
  • Look forward to a psychological model of need
    being developed and drawn upon
  • Based on a rational choice model
  • No General Personality and Cognitive Social
    Learning model

78
Humanistic/Clinical Challenges
  • Good Lives Model (Ward Stewart 03)
  • We should target enhanced well-being
  • Yes, when enhanced well-being represents an
    intermediate focus on criminogenic needs of the
    offender (in the domains of cognition,
    interpersonal relationships, family/marital,
    school/work, leisure/recreation, substance abuse)
  • Yes, when ethical to do so (ethics of using the
    power of the criminal justice in the pursuit of
    mental health objectives)
  • Yes, when RNR-based rehabilitation reduced
    victimization enhances well-being of potential
    victims

79
Mean ES by Targeting of Criminogenic and
Non-Criminogenic Needs
80
(No Transcript)
81
Two Separate Worlds of Practice
  • Noncriminogenic Needs are Targeted
    Predominantly
  • NO (k 258) YES (k 116)
  • Any Human Service
  • 75 69
  • Mean RNR Adherence
  • 1.52
    0.54
  • Mean Breadth
  • 1.47 -1.26
  • Staff Selection, Training, Clinical
    Supervision
  • 10 00
  • Sum Core Correctional Practices
  • 0.98 0.13
  • Sum of Integrity Scores
  • 3.45
    2.31
  • Cog Social Learning
  • 29
    02

82
Dowden (2005 Italy) Female Offenders (k 55,
38 studies) Correlation of Mental Health
approaches with Effect Size
  • Aspects of Emotional Well-Being as intermediate
    targets in
  • Crisis Intervention -.27 Increase crime
  • Group counseling -.13ns
  • Individual counseling, family.
  • Mean correlation with ES for 5 estimates
    with k varying from 12 to 6 for estimate
    -.10 (-.23/.02)

83
The Challenge for those who promote the targeting
of noncriminogenic needs
  • Conduct high quality outcome evaluations of
    programs that target non-criminogenic needs
  • Compare results when those programs
  • are in adherence with RNR
  • are not in adherence with RNR

84
Enhance RNR Adherence
  • Conduct assessments of risk/need
  • Structure case management
  • Conduct program-level assessments of RNR
    Adherence, Staffing and Integrity

85
Some Recent Disappointments
  • Project Greenlight (New York)
  • Cognitive Programs in England and Wales, in New
    Zealand, in Canada
  • HWHs in Ohio
  • Drug Treatment in California
  • MST, FFT ART in state of Washington
  • ..

86
  • Risk/need assessments often not employed
    systematically in assignment of cases how then
    to you insure that programs are reserved for
  • moderate and high risk cases
  • who present with the criminogenic needs that the
    program addresses
  • Avoid low risk cases interactions with higher
    risk cases

87
  • Staff should be selected, trained and clinically
    supervised according to the relationship and
    structuring skills required by the program
  • Serious violations of these principles in
    the failed programs
  • In Greenlight, staffing recommendations
    explicitly not followed

88
Underscore Importance of STAFF COMPETENCE and
INTEGRITY
  • Washington state ART and FFT
  • More Competent Therapists / Better Quality
    Implementation
  • Reduced re-offending
  • Less Competent Therapists / Poorer Quality
    Implementation
  • Increased re-offending

89
  • Higher risk cases less likely to participate
  • more likely to
    drop-out
  • (self-selection out)
  • Agencies and agents disinclined to seek out and
    adapt for the weakly motivated
  • Still a belief out there that higher risk cases
    cannot profit from programs (in particular,
    psychopaths)

90
Motivational Interviewing
  • A means of increasing the chances of higher risk
    cases becoming involved in treatment and actually
    completing treatment (the promise)
  • A means of enhancing the value of personal
    autonomy in prevention and rehabilitation
    (Astrid Birgden)

91
  • Specific Responsivity
  • reduce barriers
  • enhance access
  • build on strengths
  • respond to learning style/ability
  • respond to motivational issues (MI)
  • responsive to gender, age, ethnicity

92
GPCSL and RNR are limited and are works in
progress but
  • In the prediction of criminal behaviour of
    individuals, what does better than GPCSL and RNR?
  • Concentrating on lower class origins,
    victimization history, low self-esteem, trusting
    the judgments of clinicians..???

93
Predictive Validity (Mean r) of Minor Risk
Factors, Unstructured Prof Judgment, Moderate
Risk Factors, Major Risk Factors and Composite of
Central Eight Risk Factors (LS/CMI Risk/Need)

94
GPCSL and RNR are limited and are works in
progress but
  • What does better in guiding effective
    correctional treatment?
  • Working with low risk cases? Targeting
    non-criminogenic needs? Using alternatives to the
    cognitive social learning influence strategies?
    Failing to select, train and supervise staff with
    reference to relationship and structuring skills?

95
Mean ES by RNR Adherence including Breadth and
Adherence with Staff Selection, Training and
Clinical Supervision

96
How to Enhance Personal Well-Being Including that
of Potential Victims of Crime
  • Traditional mental health services with a focus
    on reducing personal distress and enhancing
    personal well-being
  • Services in adherence with RNR aimed at crime
    prevention (reducing victimization and its pains)
  • justice agencies
  • correctional agencies
  • aftercare agencies
  • forensic mental health (beyond
    incapacitation, beyond static risk factors)
  • Crime Prevention Jurisprudence

97
How to Enhance Personal Well-Being Including that
of Potential Victims of Crime
  • Services in adherence with RNR aimed at crime
    prevention (reducing victimization and its pains)
  • Crime Prevention as a Valued Outcome
  • in general clinical and community
    psychology
  • in general human and social services
    (child, youth, family services, .
  • in primary prevention
About PowerShow.com